[COM] Birkenhead Bridge Upgrade Project

[I Follow PAFC]

Come along to an info session for the Birkenhead Bridge Upgrade Project to meet the project team, ask questions and provide feedback.

Drop in anytime at the Port Adelaide Library, Community Room - 2-4 Church Street, Port Adelaide on:

• Wednesday, 26 February, between 11am – 1pm; or
• Thursday, 27 February, between 5pm – 7pm

This project will ensure the bridge’s long term structural integrity and safety for all users.

https://www.facebook.com/DPTISA/photos/ ... 655956525/

[marbles]

ive always thought the lighthouse should be moved (relocated) and port road simply have a bridge straight over the river

the whole left turn down st vincent to get to birkenhead bridge is silly....

bye bye birkenhead hotel haha

[ChillyPhilly]

ive always thought the lighthouse should be moved (relocated) and port road simply have a bridge straight over the river

the whole left turn down st vincent to get to birkenhead bridge is silly....

bye bye birkenhead hotel haha

Untitled-1.jpg

This was proposed by the MATS Plan. But nowadays, this would do too much damage to the Port.

[Patrick_27]

ive always thought the lighthouse should be moved (relocated) and port road simply have a bridge straight over the river

the whole left turn down st vincent to get to birkenhead bridge is silly....

bye bye birkenhead hotel haha

Untitled-1.jpg

This was proposed by the MATS Plan. But nowadays, this would do too much damage to the Port.

Unless I've missed something from the years of researching the MATS plan, I think you might be mistaken about that ever being a part of the MATS plan.

[rev]

ive always thought the lighthouse should be moved (relocated) and port road simply have a bridge straight over the river

the whole left turn down st vincent to get to birkenhead bridge is silly....

bye bye birkenhead hotel haha

Untitled-1.jpg

Port Road ends at the Grand Junction Road intersection. Its called Commercial Road from there onwards.

[rev]

ive always thought the lighthouse should be moved (relocated) and port road simply have a bridge straight over the river

the whole left turn down st vincent to get to birkenhead bridge is silly....

bye bye birkenhead hotel haha

Untitled-1.jpg

This was proposed by the MATS Plan. But nowadays, this would do too much damage to the Port.

How would it do too much damage?
That section of commercial rosd is wide, and theres an oversized footpath on the council side.
Lighthouse could be moved.
And why would the hotel need to be demolished? A bridge doesnt have to go in a straight line.......

Not that it would ever happen.

[Nort]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't part of the traffic planning for Port Adelaide to try and reduce heavy vehicles moving through the town center down Commercial Road? Moving the bridge in this way would actively encourage through-traffic.

[SRW]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't part of the traffic planning for Port Adelaide to try and reduce heavy vehicles moving through the town center down Commercial Road? Moving the bridge in this way would actively encourage through-traffic.

Which is why it's just some punter's thought bubble not an actual plan. There's no reason for it and actually works against the outcome we desire for the Port.

To the real proposal, an upgrade of Birkenhead Bridge. Yes, very good. It's looking worse for wear.

[ChillyPhilly]

An upgraded bridge should prioritise pedestrian and cycling connections - make it even less desirable for vehicle use.

[Goodsy]

an upgraded bridge should have a provision for a tram line

[Aidan]

an upgraded bridge should have a provision for a tram line

No it shouldn't. The Jervois bridge would be a much better route for trams than the Birkenhead Bridge.

[rev]

An upgraded bridge should prioritise pedestrian and cycling connections - make it even less desirable for vehicle use.

See this attitude is why so many people can't stand cyclists.

Why can't an upgrade incorporate a better outcome for both?

But your first question should be is there room to accommodate cyclists on this bridge.
Your second question should be is there a better route for cyclists.

Shame such an ugly bridgeis heritage listed amd likely cant be demolished and rebuilt unless its unsafe to use.

[Listy]

The shared pathway on the bridge itself is perfectly fine. It's reasonably new, fairly wide & much improved compared to the old setup (ie no path at all). What needs significant improvement are the approaches to the bridge along Nelson St. There are good shared pathways just a couple of hundred metres north and south of the bridge, but in between there's some dodgy & confusing infrastructure - disappearing pathways & bike lanes etc, especially on the northern side.

[Honey of a City]

An upgraded bridge should prioritise pedestrian and cycling connections - make it even less desirable for vehicle use.

See this attitude is why so many people can't stand cyclists.

Why can't an upgrade incorporate a better outcome for both?

But your first question should be is there room to accommodate cyclists on this bridge.
Your second question should be is there a better route for cyclists.

Shame such an ugly bridgeis heritage listed amd likely cant be demolished and rebuilt unless its unsafe to use.

There’s already heaps of room for pedestrians and cyclists on the Birk Bridge. That’s not going to change. Heritage listing is about heritage, not ugliness, which is in the eye of the beholder. The heritage listing is because the structure met a range of criteria under the Act.

[bits]

The heritage listing is because the structure met a range of criteria under the Act.

"Significance
The Birkenhead Bridge across the Gawler Reach of the Port River was completed in 1940. It is significant for being Australia's first double bascule bridge. The only other opening bridge remaining in South Australia (in 1999) is the vertical lift span bridge at Paringa on the River Murray."

First double bascule and remaining opening bridge make it a significant piece of engineering history for SA.

It is to be remembered for its engineering at its time not for what it looks like.